Dear Dover: Well, the one in your link has the 143 on serial number. I can see through that link that the price on the Karat Nova 13D had fluctations on the 25%: 40,000 yens against a second sample ( the same year. ) for 49,800 yens.
Now, seems to me a little weird that Dynavector choosed an elliptical stylus shape for its top of the line cartridge against other down models where choosed line contact ( 23R or 17D. ).
In that same link appears the Karat Nova 17D ( wood body. ) and in this one the stylus shape was line contact with a longer cantilever: 1.7mm against 1.3mm on the 13D.
Could you share the specs on the 13D and specs to make the cartridge set-up along your opinion on its performance level?, thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: Now after reading your last post my expectation with the 13D grow up. Tomorrow I will have on hand but my system still down. I will post my experiences with the Karat Nova 13D.
Another curios " subject " is that according the information I have the elliptical stylus in the 13D is not the normal 0.3x0.7 or 0.2x0.7 but 0.25x.0.7. Certainly Dynavector had reasons to choose a non-orthodox elliptical stylus shape.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Montepilot: I really appreciated your time to share here your fine audio analog experiences through MM/MI and LOMC cartridges.
I agree that the 20SS is a tiny step a top the 4000D3.
I read again your Reed2A tonearm review ( as a fact I posted tehre in the past. ) to " figure " about what surrounded all the cartridges you own.
Halcro question was critical and I assume for the same reasons I read about your system and agree with him that the MM/MI cartridges are really demandant/ask for the best set up we can make for it can shows at its best, same for the LOMC ones.
I heard the Allnic electronics and the Veito ( in my system. ) but not the Puritas. Allnic cartridge is no surprise: a good one but nothing exceptional. Well only a few cartridges out there are exceptionals.
I had and have deep and long experiences with SUTs ( external and internal to phono stages like Allnic. ), in some times I was convinced that nothing could be better than LOMC through a SUTs, that was what I learned till I grow up.
My position about SUTs are not a new one but older. Here two posts on that subject by me:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1130451054&openflup&29&4#29
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&41&4#41
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&20&4#20
IMHO your electronics can't do justice to any LOMC cartridge including your Puritas, but this is only my opinion.
I believe what you hear through your system with LOMC cartridge whaT i CAN'T BE SURE IS IF WHAT YOU HEARD IS WHAT IS IN THE RECORDING OR ONLY A KIND OF " INTERPRETATION " by your self due to the own electronics high distortions. TYhose Allnics are far from be accurate and certainly this makes huge differences for cartridge comparisons.
In the other side, good that your SS phono stage can handle 100k impedance that IMHO with many MM/MI cartridge is a must along the right capacitance loading.
I know, as Fremer " posted " that the Samuels is very good for its price range but IMHO not the best out there.
If it is true that loading set up is critical for MM/MIs it is critical too the phono stage design and phono stage quality performance level. Your Samuels use IC for its gain stages and active RIIA implementation, these design choices has some advantages but critical disadvantages. Why to use ICs instead discrete circuits?, one reason is to stay in a market price range ( normaly a low price range, like the Samuels ) other reason is that to fulfil top performance through a full discrete design demands a higher knowledge level and better skills from the designers.
Till today I never heard an ICs based phono stage design that outperforms a good discrete based design. I'm talking of quality level performance.
I think that your experiences and comparisons in your system , IMHO, can't be taked as a true comparison because not only electronics ( critical ) but tonearms were different.
Maybe if you compare the Puritas and the 20SS through the Samuels you can have a more " fair " comparison with less " different parameters " that affect the overall comparison.
As I posted my reference is a LOMC cartridge and for good reasons but for good reasons too some of the top MM/MI I own and owned are a real challenge to any LOMC including your Puritas.
Both designs ( LOMC and MM/MI ) are not perfect and the best on these designs is that many of us today have two alternatives instead only LOMC like in the past.
I know that the important subject here is what you heard and hear through your system because is the way you like to " live " with. This post is only an opinion but yours is the important one.
Thank you again for share your experiences that as many other audio experiences always are: learning ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jbethree3: That PS Audio phono stage is better that we can think and yes it will works with your DL-S1. I hope you enjoy this best ( IMHO ) Denon ever.
Your feedback is welcome.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Chopin123: It is weird, you are Agon member since 2008 and this is your very first post ever. Certainly you choosed the right thread to " win " slef notorious.
I can believe that you heard some of the cartridges mentioned through the thread but I think is almost imposible to heard all even me that I'm so fast to test cartridges I have several cartridges ( mentioned here ) that till today I had/have no time to tested.
That you like more the 103R means almost nothing against the MM/MI cartridges you compared because between other things that kind of comparisons depends not only on each one targets but on how good is the audio system and your skills to make the right set up to each cartridge.
If the 103 is your champion certainly you deserve it that king of performance level and nothing more.
Thank's to post here, welcome any time.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Storyboy: +++++ " this statement reveals your arrogance " +++++
I don't think so. Let me tell you something: that person posted that he prefers his 103R against " any single cartridge named here ".
I own the 103 and owned the 103R and I know and have very clear its quality performance level that's very good for the price these current Denon models have but this does not means that can beats not one of the very top MM/MI vintages but ( for example ) the Grace Ruby or the AT-20SS.
Do you think that a stock 103R could beats the Technics P100CMK4 ( for example ).?, IMHO the only chance to do it is because a wrong Technics overall set up.
For that person the 103 performance level is what he liked and then that's all what he deserve. Which the problem to posted in this way: arrogance? well that's your opinion mine is that that is what that person is " living " with.
Nandric posted that that post was " provocative " but IMHO was not provocative but almost stupid one because there is no single explanation by him as : why he think what he posted? or at least two-three cartridge comparison tests he experienced against his 103R even we don't know not only if his 103R is a modified cartridge and certainly we all don't know which audio system he owns and under which circumstances he made all those cartridge comparisons tests.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Good to know you don't design AHT. This is the second-three times where we discuss about and if my memory don't fail in one of those ocasions you posted was the designer but now I can't be sure till I find out that post.
Anyway nice to read that: +++ " ICs are superior in some areas of performance. " +++++ that's in " some " and that's similar of what I posted: " advantages and disadvantages, nothing is perfect ". The bigger disadvantage ( IMHO ) is that to achieve low distortions IC handle and works with hundred of feedback dbs and feedback has a " bad " signature " that IMHO uneven the ICs advantages.
Btw, my audio system is down for very different reasons. For your information the MM section just from the begining catches up and that's why this thread started. Only if my audio system can make " justice " to the MM/MI alternative I can post and posted whay you already read over the thread.
++++ " especially considering that your preamp is probably second rate " +++++
certainly that is something that you can't confirm but there are other persons that think is first rate and I can tell you that's second to none by design, quality design, quality's excecution and second to none quality performance level. Any time you want could confirm my statement.
In the other side and as Nandric pointed out Agon forum is not a tribunal and I don't need and don't feel the necessity to give you or to give to any other persons any single explanation about. It is clear to me that as you some other persons here are not not only my friends but persons whom I don't like them and try to take advantage any time they can.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Fleib: I think I was not enough clear and precise: I have not to give any explanation to any one on my private actions, period.
R. |
Dear friends/Dover: I received my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D and it is just amazing the very high craftmanship level that Dyna achived here, the best I ever saw from Dynavector.
My sample came with out cartridge pin connectors but hard wired all over the dedicated headshell pin connectors. Everything looks so special on this cartridge: from its wood body and dedicated headshell through its removable stylus guard. This cartridge makes that any one of us be so proudly to be an owner of this " baby " as I never experienced before.
I can't test it yet because my system still down and because through micro the stylus needs a retip. I have no doubt that will be a whole experience listen to this LOMC Dynavector.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: Maybe my IQ musical is inferior to the one you have but nothing for what I shame of me. Always trying to learn about.
As many other persons here I attend with some frequency to live events and yes the live music is my " natural " reference. This is what you can read on my Agon virtual system description:
+++ " My reference is: live music, I use at least 12 hours ( each month ) hearing live music, mostly classical and jazz/blues. I attend to hear live music not only because I'm a music lover ( first than all. ) but because in this way I don't loose my references, this way I try to have my foots on earth an my ears equalized.
My audio/sound reproduction priorities are in this order: neutral and natural tonal balance, accuracy ( low distortion, low noise, no colorations, no cliping, grain free, liniarity, no compression, etc...), timbre, dynamics, focus and soundstage .
My whole audio system target is to be nearest to the recording adding the less and loosing the less of the audio signal through each audio system link. " ++++
In many ways my system is better than the " real thing " but this is only because a microphone at 2-3 m. has not only better resolution but takes in better way the live music sound than my ears at 15-20m from the music source.
In the other hand I try to mimic the natural tone color of the live music as its dynamic, this last with not very good success. No, I don't try to get what please me but what is right.
IMHO we can catch the whole real thing but only some " high lights ". How good are our each one systems depends on those real thing's " high lights ".
The suts issue could be controversial till we analyze one or two suts limitations like ( for example )to handle accurate/non-colored low bass frequency range against a good active design: no contest in this regards. The key here is " good " active phono stage design. There are many active and expensive high gain PS with a mediocre quality design, I don't know which ones you already compared against suts. Anyway, could be no important on the whole subject because by physics laws we can't do nothing against each technology self limitations where suts are more imperfect than active gain stages.
Btw, good that you " hear the REAL thing all the time ". I hope you already learned about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: That Virgo " scene " happen all the time. Modifications to axhieve a real improvement are not only modifications per se ( better this or better that. ) but a knowledge level and skills by your self because if not you only get a different performance but not a better one.
Certainly Dgarretson knows very well what he did and do everytime!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Perhaps the most " elusive " audio ling to design is a speaker. It is an electrical/mechanic item where is very complex to achieve an equilibrum between all the factors/parameters involved to get firt class quality performance in any environment.
It is IMHO so " elusive " to get the " near perfect " speakers that if we read or see through the Audio and Stereophile magazynes ( bible audio items year by year. ) we can confirm that spekers models are the higher number of items against any other audio link ( amps, TT, cartridges, cables, cartridges, CDP and the like ).
Obviously I don't heard every single speaker out there but I heard several ones from the top to the lower performance steps on the speaker quality performance ladder and even that there are some great designs I never encountered a " perfect one ", that's why I'm still with the ones I own that are far away to be perfect.
In many ways is more easy to modified speakers than to design it and that's why we can get real improvents through modifications.
This is the same that many of us already experienced through cartridge modifications as with the Clearaudio Virtuoso or Acutex or Astatic or ATs/Signets.
What all of us already made/done about: we decided to take a very good cartridge motor design and changed cantilever/stylus with great results.
Same happen with modified tube electronics and not so often with SS electronics where is way more dificult to modify it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Albertporter: Very nice looking. Btw, what happened with the similar high output model, do you bought it?.
I own/owned both and I prefer the HO by a hair, could be interesting to know opinion from you. It is not often that the same person owns both models.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: ++++ " from which I gather there are 130 various styli to select from. " ++++++
now I can see what move you more. Like with AT/Signet the Stanton/Pickering is a good toy for interchangeability not only between both lines but in between.
Maybe that's why you don't buy yet the Astatic MF-300 that appears frequently from the same seller on ebay: Astatic has not that versatility but I can tell you that even the top Stanton/Pick/AT or Signet could have a very " hard day " against it on quality performance level and of course Axel always is a good option to MF-300 up-grade.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: I can see that like with the AT/Signet the S/P alternative gives a lot of fun: ++++ " from which I gather there are 130 various styli to select from. " +++
is this what moves you to be behind these cartridges?. I ask this because someone like you that like quality performance over other parameters don't try yet to get the Astatic " magic " and I wonder why . Today the Astatic ( MF-300 ) is still available ( NOS at very good price. I think we have to get it whiule it last. ) ) and IMHO worth to own with the perspective Axel's up-grade.
I don't heard the 500EE/XV-15 ( only the 981s. ) but for what other persons reports here on the Astatics and for what I heard those Astatics are a little better and I mean over the 981s.
Anyway, only " thinking " about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jorsan/Jbthree: I think that may be could be a better alternative to the 981/980s to buy a similar motor Stanton cartridge and then send to Axel to a cantilever/stylus up-grade. IMHO this alternative can outperform the original one if for no other thing because the suspension " refresh " when cantilever/stylus is up-dated. Now, you not only can achieve a better quality performance but with less money.
Today and after several first hand experiences I'm for the vintage cartridge up date, till today every single cartridge I made the up date performs not different but way better: Acutex, Virtuoso, Dimension 5, etc are a good example.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jorsan: I think that Timeltel or Dlaloum could help you in a better way than be on that " motor " subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: But the vendor exchanged that ATN-25 or made a full refund for you?
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel and friends: After read the link you posted about Stanton/Pickering OEM stylus replacement IMHO Axel is still abetter option, let me explain:
top of the " line " cantilever stylus is the berilyum cantilever along nude Shibata for 325 euros and with Gyger II 365 euros ( Gyger II is similar as the replicant 100 by Ortofon and is the one that comews with the top of the line Allaerts cartridges. ). Of course that we can choose boron or aluminum cantilever too for less money. Another advantage is that we send the cartridge to Axel an he will make an inspection to the cartridge and will fix any single trouble on it so when we receive in return the cartridge we have a NEW cartridge with the best we can get today. Not bad !!!
Years ago I was reluctant ( in this same thread ) to modify the vintage cartridges I own but today I learned and IMHO I know I was fully wrong.
As I posted before: a good vintage cartridge motor with today " technology " ( cantilever/stylus and suspension refresh ) is not only a better cartridge than the original but a cartridge in a top and different " league ". So, today makes no sense to me buy vintage top of the line cartridges ( like that 981LZS ) but similar motors along an up grade. Yes for persons that are " collector's item " original status is the name of the game but I'm not a " collector's item ".
Btw, you had an important influence in me on this regard, thank's
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: That's were the top of the line up grades but as Nandric posted somewhere: from the same source we can get superior overall cartridge performance with this " entry " level up grades: tapered aluminum with pressure fitted nude line (+/- 150 Euro) and boron / elliptical (?) for +/- 160 Euro.
Other than my Goldring G800 Axel (between others ) has on hand by me: Nagatron 9600, Azden P50E, Acutex flat nose 320, Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood, Astatic MF-300, Acutex 315 ( long nose ), Ortofon MC3000MK2, Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, Highphonic MCA6 and counting.
One advantage from my side is that I own two samples on some cartridges or at least a second stylus replacement sample and where I have not does not matters I make the up grade anyway.
Next step is to go a head with my ATs and a lot of different lines/models Empire cartridge ( I think I own around 10 models on the Empire lines. ) and with my AKGs. Well step by step because that means money.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: Agree. One important subject is to ask the re-tipping source to make the work conforming the cartridge needs especially on the cantilever length and suspension tunning.
Yes, that load impedance along capacitance cartridge set up is critical. I found out that 100K works fine with almost all the cartridges I have but as you said we have to be sure making some measures about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: As I posted I'm not an expert on the Stanton/Pickering subject but I read on VE and Lencoheaven ( richard is the right member to ask here. ) sites the information on similar motors for different models so we have to take a look down there.
In the other side Dominic was my reference to obtain the Goldring G800 that it is already on the whole fixing retip/refresh work. This G800 ( modified. ) is the today Dominic's reference so we have to try it. We can get for a few coins and then the retipping!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Nandric: Well that " entry level " was to have a difference with the top up grade works.
I decided to move on this refurbishing vintage cartridges because we have to " move " we have to keep walking trying to learn trying to discover all what is a head of what we already have already know. IMHO there is a lot of land a head so why not try to conquer it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: As Nandric posted Axel " take " English with no trouble. One advantage with him is that he handle nude : elliptical, superelliptical, line contact, shibata, Gyger2, etc, so we can get what we want with different cantilever build material: boron, aluminum, ruby/sapphire and Be. Yes with more options is more dificult to make a choice.
You ask for differences when listening elliptical (0.2x0.7 ) against line contact and even that in theory there are differences on performance because in theory ( as Fleib posted ) you can get more contact area with the line contact things are that due to so many imperfections on playback that those differences could be real ones or only distortions from either stylus shape. In many ways could be more important how good the fixing source align the cantilever and the stylus in the cantilever and his " touch " in the suspension.
The other side is the real cantilever construction/shape/dimension and how good was polished the stylus. Each cartridge's fix source has its own cantilever and stylus source and not necessary the same one.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: Jico SAS alternative as we experienced is not always the best option. Other than the Technics 205 bad experience I have first hand another one: when I bought my Shure M97 Jico SAS and due that I really like it a friend of mine owner of the Shure V15 VMR ask me about and I in some " stupid " way recomemend his the Jico SAS for his Shure with out taking in count what Dlaloum posted here several times with out taking in count the Shure V15 cantilever original build material.
What happened?: that my friend ordered the Jico SAS for his Shure and after 30 hours of playback we take in count that the Shure original stylus was way better than the more distorted performance in the JICO SAS. The only thing that I made with my friend was a " shamed ": sorry.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: I almost agree with you, as a fact your experiences are what through this thread other members reported including me.
Now, " working " again with LOMC cartridges in the last 1.5 year I found out at least two LOMC cartridges that did not conforms exactly as what you stated but that in some ways gives what we like for the top MM/MI and do it more accurate with lower coloration than in the MM/MI cartridges.
In a home audio system IMHO the frequency extremes are the ones that " tame " the midrange, as better the frequency extremes as better the midrange we have to recall that music is conformed by harmonics.
IMHO a " weak " link ( if we can name it that way. ) in the MM/MI cartridges against my prefered LOMC ones is at frequency extremes where one-two maybe 3-4 LOMC cartridges performs ( as I said ) with not only best applomb but with accuracy that the MM/MI even that are near it can't even. I'm talking here of small/tiny " colorations/distortions " but not because are tiny are not there. System resolution and system accuracy IMHO is the name to evaluate that subject.
I'm waiting to receive all my MM/MI and LOMC " up graded " by Axel to make a re-evaluation on the whole subject looking for what I was missing before the up grade or lossing after it.
Something very clear to me is that the MM/MI performance quality level is almost always very high against LOMC where there are several cartridges that are terrible. The MM/MI alternative is more " even " on that subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " "It's more musical" " +++++
like " smooth " " musical " IMHO almost always is a sinonymus of un-natural and accepted coloration/distortion...
Live music is accurate and has natural tone color, it is smooth but at the same time with natural agressiveness.
Musical, smooth, warmer, analityc, lean and the like are audiophile terms that means that kind of performance is not accurate but colored and/distorted.
There are no audio systems that be perfect so those colorations are " normal " and the differences in between for quality performance level resides in those " colorations/distorions " level differences.
So it is normal for many people speak with those " normal " terms. Maybe we need a different set of audiophile words or change its today meaning.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Grbluen2: Several cartridges performs better at 100k. In the other side I use the original stylus.
William Thakker is a source for Nagaoka stylus replacement and obviously Axel or SS are always an alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Good that you know everything but I'm not making a critic about you but what your friend said that's acomumn audiophile vocabolary for say: " I like it " more that's " right ".
Anyways, I don't need to been at your place to know what you are talking about ( almost. ): I know that you use modified tube electronics, I know your analog rig and more or less your ES speakers so I don't have the necesity to figure nothing.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Frogman: Yes, " musical images " could be better. Now, let me to ask you: which could be the musical image of a pair of horns/trumpets playing at 2m from you.? what musical image permit those trumpets natural agresiveness high SPL direct sound been percieved?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: I have not that experience but normaly is hard to take out a cartridge in that condition and when goes out ( if this coukld happen. ) there is no way to mount it in an universal headshell: that cartridge was not prepared for that kind of set up/mount. In the other side always exist the posibilioty that trying to do it the cartridge could be damaged.
Now, I know that " something " is better that nothing but here differences on quality performance level are important beteen the MK2 and MK version, I mean not subtle. Of course that if you already own it you have to live with but if not then try to wait for a better carrtridge " offer ".
yes, I know too that the P100CMK4 ( stand alone version. ) is very hard to find out .
Btw, I was so stupid to let it go my MK4 version but fortunately I recove it. IMHO, any carrtridge looking for be name it the best out there must pass over the Technics P100CMK4 before can achieve that " name ". The MK4 is an extraordinary performer in its stand alone/non-integrated version.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric and friends: As I posted maybe is time to have more precise and clear audio-words related to explain quality performance on audio-items. A common audio language is a must to have but IMHO it is a lot more easy/simple tell it that achieve it.
I think that that " new " audio glozary must include two real aspects of the whole " thing ": objectivity with a touch of subjectivity.
The " touch of subjectivity " I'm talking is not the usualy: " I like it " or " what a soundstage " and the like, what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve.
Example, Dlaloum posted: ++++ " Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music. " +++++
why those " speed/dynamics " diferences are IMHO THE MAIN DIFFERENCEs BETWEEN LIVE MUSIC AND AUDIO SYSTEM. My take here is that in live music there is nothing but the air between the music instrument sound and you: fastest than this does not exist, is from here where the full live music dynamics belongs to that straight and simple: an audio system never can not even but not be near it. You have to think all the linka that exist between the live instrument to be recorded till that sound emanate from the speakers!!!! all the speed/dynamics took by the microphone were loosed on all those audio links during the recording and playback proccess.
Dlaloum ( I love this guy. ) posted: " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect. " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system?, if you take a look to my virtual system music priorities this one is the last in importance to me.
I'm with Dlaloum about to take objectivity as main parameter to evaluate audio item performance. Not that I'm against subjectivity ( because I'm not. ) but if you think a little subjectivity depends on objectivity even if we are not measuring the right source, all what we heard/hear can be measure no doubt about.
Problem with subjectivity is that all of us are already biased to some kind of sound that we like because all what we learned ( bad and good things. ) and experienced and I have to tell: some of us and I can tell almost all are biased in a wrong way by the AHEE. An example of this is that many people today still are in love with tubes ( please don't go inside that's is not a subject here but only an example. ) or with hoprns on speakers or LOMC cartridges or fancy cables.
How can we get or meet to a concens when we all are biased in some different ways?, to achieve that concens could be a fenomenal, titanic and almost impossible target with out a common bias on what we hear.
Years ago ( 1-2 ) in this thread I invited all of you to try again ( dertonarm posted the first official thread asking for the same and after 100 posts I was the only person that took the " bull by its horns ": no one else cares or understand the main importance of the subject in favor to understand in between all of us. ) to find out that common bias on what we heard. I explained about, even I linked my posts on that Dertonarm's thread, and the result was the same: no one cares. Everybody talks but no one really cares and do nothing about.
That's why some of you not only can't understand why I support that the FR-64/66 is the more distorted tonearm out there even some of you are in love with and like this tonearm subject there are many more. We are in a Babel's Tower where more or less we think we understand each to other but the real subject IMHO is that is not that way: the warm term ( for example ) has several kind of meaning in each one of us, could be at random that some of us could coincide in the meaning but I can't know for shure.
An audio glossary terms IMHO means that we understand the same on one term ( tone color or dynamics or whatever. ): its meaning and that meaning how is reflected in our audio system. For achieve this we have to have a common bias on some LPs/tracks where all hear/experience almost the same. With out this common bias we can't go on.
Every one of us have their " propietary " system's proccess to make evaluations and that proccess is the one that we use every single time we are making comparisons.
I posted several times in this an other threads my proccess that always follow with the same tracks and the same protocol, I never changed and only make a change to enrich the whole proccess. That's why I'm so fast to evaluate not only an audio item but any audio system with over 90% of success, at least till now.
As you can see the task is a hard an complex one and more complex because as Lewm poste: normally " we agree to disagree ".
Anyway, sooner or latter we must do it. To live every single day in this Babel's Tower is useless and non-productiv for any one.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Maybe you miss this post where I willl test all alternatives about the P77:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&7109&4#7109
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: You are welcomed.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: +++++ " and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system, we can't compare it in any way and IMHO the best we can do is to take the live music as a reference of something we can't achieve. " +++
that is what I posted one or two thread's pages before.
along:
++++ " soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect ( Dlaloum ). " +++ and I agree with Lharasim here: who cares about when does not exist in live events as we talk in an audio system? " +++++
I know that almost think 3D exist in live music and yes could exist if we are seated like funflyer at 40'-50 feets and even here depends on several factors as he pointed out.
Microphones are not at 40-50 feets but really near the sources, sometimes 1m-2m from there. Micros taakes the direct sound where exist no 3D and takes almost no reflected sound or at to low SPL that that reflected sound disappears with the higher SPL of the direct sound. A classical music Director playing/performing a wide orchestral composition as any of the Mahler symphonies can't look for 3D at 2-3m from the source but more on pin point source on the sherzos/moderato stages but in the " tutties " he not only can't perceive that pinpoint image but certainly no 3D or any reflected sound as we can perceived 20-30 m from the Director main stage position.
If we hear or heard jazz music in a club/night jazz club it does not matters where we are seated ( normally all the seat positions are nearfield ) we can't detect the 3D phenomenon.
I read all the post here and after that I'm still with Dlaloum and Lharasim about: no real 3D in live events ( at least at the micro/Director position but only through audio systems.
Btw, two mics against multimics. I don't remember whom of you posted something like this: " at the end we heard with two ears not multimics ". I agree in that we hear with twoo ears but we make all the functions that are similar of what the recording enginners makes but we make it in automatic version with no sound manipulations. Let me explain alittle what/which is my take here:
a musi's Director hear with two ears but he is hearing not from two sources , as can be what takes two mics, but from multi-sources ( each orchestral instrument: multimics. ) that inside his/our brain were blended in natural way with no single manipulation. Problem with multimic recordings is that the blend is manipulated in the wrong way but not because is multimic recording.
I think that a good non-manipulated multimic is faraway a better one recording than a two mics one because these mics has no the habilities of: take the multisource sound and blend in natural way as our ears/brain do.
++++++ " , what I'm talking is a little on the side of what happen with live music through an audio system on subjects like: tone color, dynamic. agresiveness, direct sound, etc, etc. and not compare both mediums: live music against audio system " ++++++
I think in some way Lawrence posted something like what I posted too.
Now, if that 3D really you think exist maybe is time to ask our self: Ravel, Berlioz, Bethoven , etc, etc, took in count that reflected sound many of us are talking about? because that reflected sound is the main " culprit for that 3D image. My answer is NO no one of them took in count any single reflected sound in their compositions even in those old times several performances were in a free space.
I think that in some ways several of the 20+ last posts on the subjects are mixing apples with oranges, maybe I'm wrong or did not understanded those posts and the one mixing those apples with oranges is me but all these is what I think about.
I respect all opinions from you but I think we have to re-think about with out closing " eyes " when trying to evaluate something on the subject ( like Dover. ).
Btw, I almost always suppor and supported that in the very first moment we close our eyes when listening music in that same moment we are lsitening everything our imagination want to hear according how we are biased in that moment. Dear Dover, we hear and perceive sound from all our body including " open eyes " tha's the natural way not closed eyes.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: I did not and now I can't because my system still down but that is not the subject due that in my system at 100R performs very good with no sign of what you posted.
Maybe you can make a test: that your friend borrowed his sample and test it in your system and see if duplicate what you already listened.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jorsan: Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are low riders low/medium compliance ones, not all samples are low riders because quality control on this model is not even but normaly are low riders but 1mm seems to me to low and maybe in that cartridge exist a suspension problem. Now, if the cartridge performs good then maybe you have not be worried about. In the other side and as I said there is no even quality control in this Koetsu model and depends on its vintage production how it runs.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " nformation that is present in real life is lost by the recording process.... " +++++
and I can add :2 and during playback proccess too ".
As I posted, a comparison between what we have at home has no comparison against live music: main factor is that in a live event there is nothing in between music and you but the air instead what we hear in a LP has over 100 links/veils/filters that gives to the sound a different " face ". The speed, dynamics, no-distortions, fflow, tone color, natural agresiveness and the like diminish the real " power of music " the feeling and emotions that only the live music can gives in its own way.
I repeat: nothing but the air between music and each one of us, THIS IS THE WHOILE DIFFERENCE.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: ++++ " We do not know what the composers did or did not intend, with the exception of the occasional letters/notes left by them. " +++++
I'm refering to this statement and agree with you. Of course that the halls are builded with the direct/reflected sound subject but I'm not refereing in specific to the halls.
I'm refering on what we can experience at the orchestral Director position or what we experienced in a jazz club where IMHO and trhough my experiences the direct sound SPL is so high that made that the reflected sound almost disappear. This happen at2m-3m from the sound source when in a hall we are seated 20-30m from there: way way differences on what we get and what the mics get with no manipulation.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Downunder: Great experiences. The Technics P100CMK4 with the right overall set up is just a fascinating performer hard very hard to beat and a real challenge for any cartridge out there.
Good that you own the stand alone version and good too to hear from you again.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jorsan Usually all my Koetsu experiences " demanded " in my set up a tiny positive SRA/VTA but this could change on your set up.
We all know that the cartridge SRA have to coincide with the LP cutting angle but this is no way to fulfil due to LP imperfections that all we know so we have to try/test in each set up and decide about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " my 980LZS driving the high gain phono stage.... "+++++
as with the LOMC cartridge the Stanton was not designed for SUTs.
Now, I don't know why your 980 can't " shine " at 100 ohms. My 981 certainly dit it at that load impedance but my Phonolinepreamp is way different from yours. Now, remember that lower impedance meand lower SPL so when we compare at higher impedance we have to match the SPL under any carrtridge comparisons.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: I owned any single SUT from the early 80's by AT. From the AT630 to the AT1000T.
The 630 was not an entry level one but a way mediocre SUT that IMHO can't makes any " favor " to no cartridge. Forgeret about specs but one extremely important: the AT 630 weight is less than 200grs against the AT1000T that weights over 8kg. From where came that SUT weight: from the transformers as better and bigger transformer ( obviously according a good design like the AT one. ) as better frequency extremes response, especially on the bass.
I repect what you are hearing but let to tell you: its next " brother " ( top step ) the AT650 fumigate the 630 and the 700T or the AT1000T are a totally different " face " on qualioty performance level.
IMHO any god designed headamp outperform the 630. I believe what you posted but makes no sense to me knowing that 630 that other than degradation helps to nothing but an " emergency ".Crisp sound almost always means: " distortions ", at least that's my experiences.
Maybe you are doing " something " with that 630 that I'm unaware.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. " +++++
even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing.
++++ " and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. " ++++
I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. " +++++
even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing.
++++ " and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. " ++++
I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton/Pickering Lovers: If you have interest to go a little deeper on the Stanton cartridge alternatives/subject this link could help you. This guys are very good about inclusive Richard writed a book that's considered the Stanton/Pickering Bible for many people, I think the book is still on sale you only have to contact Richard:
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=158.0
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: My take on this critic/important subject is and was analized just from the begin of this thread:
CARTRIDGE TRACKING HABILITIES.
IMHO this is the " name of the game ": MM/MI cartridges share a common characteristic that's that are high compliance devices where the LOMC are low to medium compliance ones. IMHO that MM/MI compliance characteristics ( of course that kind of suspension/cantilever and stylus shape have influence and are part of those cartridge habilities. ) makes the difference when in these kind of cartridges the stylus tip is almost always in the groove against the LOMC that lose contact ( minute/tiny/micro-level. ) with the groove in comparison with the MM/MIs.
Stay in the groove not only means lower tracking distortion but more musical information where will comes the harmonics and the whole " thing ". So IMHO the LOMC cartridgesw have higher tracking distortions and less overall musical information: that's why we can't " smell the roses " with the LOMC cartridges. Please read the last Downunder's post where he claims that he prefers his stand alone Technics P100CMK4 to his new and top of the line Lyra Atlas. The P100CMK4 is a very very good tracker.
Regaqrds and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: +++++ " detailed performance-- a very detailed but smooth and refined treble. " +++++
agree with you. Perhaps the main difference between the L and H Stanton models reside here where IMHO the H one put more " drama " down there a more real " drama " instead the L version could be too smooth.
Good that as Lewm you are satisfied with and as you posted: +++ " lest I be accused of never meeting an MM/MI that I didn't like. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: J.Carr posted something that all of us are hearing onece and again every single day and that Dlaloum made a " similar " reference months ago ( Dlaloum refered to : how much of what we heard at high frequencies is real frequency response and how much is IMD/distortions ):
+++++ " Even if the LP only extends out to 5kHz, distortion can "create" 10kHz, 15kHz, 20kHz and so on " +++++
this is why is so important to get as lower it can the cartridge tracking distortions. The didtortion and the generated harmonics is something that's part on every single audio system all over electronics, cartridges or speakers.
I posted several times that many times that: crisp, open, brillant, transparent and " inner detail " are only distortions high distortions and not really music information but we are accustom to and we think that's what is in the recording that that is musical information when it is not but distortions.
Till today and thanks to the J.Carr post I heve a part of the explanation on what we hear that has a high content of distortions and that we are not aware that are distortions.
I know I'm aware and that's what I supported for years but even some of you think I'm " crazy " or " deaf " about because for example Lewm posted in a ironic way something like this: " because he is aware or can hear distortions and we can't ".
Anyway, very good point on what J.Carr posted about.
Everything the same on cartridge quality level performance what really define that quality level is the phono stage. We all know this but only a few gives the real importance of this link on the analog quality performance medium. Of course like Lewm/Dover pointed out the extra gain need it for the LOMC cartridges makes a difference and we can't think a difference for the better: any additional stages where the cartridge signal must pass means degradation and added distortions and we can hear it if we are aware of those distortio0ns. That's why is so critic the phono stage for LOMC cartridges and I agree with some of you that think that there are not many truly good phono stage designs out there. In this regards of added signal stages for the LOMC ones these kind of cartridges are in clear disadvantage against the MM/MIs but the MM/MIs is a challenge too and I know that as with the LOMC phono stages there are not many MM phono stages up to MM needs and one reason is that the designers does not cares about the MM/MI alternative.
The high-end phono stages that comes with both options ( LOMC and MM/MI ) its real " design effort " goes on the LOMC side and the MM/MI alternative is only a " side line " many times only to have an additional " facility " to the customer but way lower quality in the design.
I hope that sooner or latter the phono stage designers not only be better ones with the LOMCs but more important with the MM/MIs that due to its " poor " design this kind of cartridge is in disadvantage and even that we love it by comparisons.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: Axel has several of my cartridges, last week I emailed asking for the total amount of his works with four of those cartridges and I just receive an email from him telling me that today he will ship those cartridges.
The " funny " an unexpected thing is that he will ship with out payment because he does not gives the amount a bout. This confirm the very good Halcro's experiences with Axel.
I think you have to worry of nothing with this gentleman, as Nandric posted: he is now a very busy man.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |